Traditional Authorities’ Peacemaking Role in Darfur

As broader peace efforts have faltered, the international community has increasingly focused on the capacity of local communities in Darfur to regulate conflict in their midst. This report examines the traditional justice system in Darfur and points to challenges facing traditional authorities, as well as how the system has adapted and evolved during the years of violent conflict.

Summary

The violence in Darfur is simultaneously a crisis of governance and a problem of law and order.

The Native Administration is a century-old and evolutive system of traditional leaders that underpins the traditional justice sector.

Traditional justice and statutory law are and have long been intertwined, but the terms of the exchange have changed.

The Native Administration has been compromised, disempowered, and delegitimized.

Many courts have been shut down by either the government or the rebels.

The war has made it harder for traditional mechanisms to resolve disputes across tribal lines.

Affiliation to tribe and party are necessary for both survival and success.

As broader peace efforts have faltered, interest has increased in the capacity of local communities to regulate conflict in their midst.

Darfurians believe that the first step in addressing a conflict should be a mediation and that the government should be the last resort.

Traditional justice mechanisms are evolving rather than disappearing.

Judiya is the main reconciliation and justice mechanism.

The ajawid are elders or notables from a family, clan, or tribe not involved in the dispute. Government officials and judicial officers can serve. Neutrality is key.

The principle of judiya is that all sides agree to abide by the recommendations before hear­ing them. If one party is dissatisfied, the ajawid may decide to review their decisions.

Reconciliation is a central component of judiya and involves buy-in from both sides.

The chief element in acknowledging responsibility is collective payment of compensation.

Darfurians favor judiya over the courts in part because it is faster and in part because it is more free of governmental interference.

Darfurians want the government to endorse and support reconciliation, but not to vet or control it.

About the Report

The violence that has raged in Darfur for a decade is both a crisis of governance and a problem of law and order. As broader peace efforts have faltered, interest has increased in the capacity of local communities in Darfur to regulate conflict in their midst. All hope that traditional leaders, working within the framework of traditional justice, can be more successful in restoring some semblance of normalcy and security to Darfur. This report outlines the background to the conflict and the challenges in resolving it.

About the Author

Victor Tanner has worked with war-affected populations in Africa, the Middle East, and the Balkans, both as an aid worker and a researcher, for more than twenty years. He first lived and worked in Darfur in 1988. Since 2002, he has conducted field research on local social and political dynamics in the Darfur conflict, visiting many parts of Darfur and eastern Chad as well. He speaks Sudanese Arabic. Jérôme Tubiana is an independent researcher specializing in Darfur, Sudan, and Chad, where he has worked as a consultant for various humanitarian organizations and research institutions, International Crisis Group, the Small Arms Survey, USIP, USAID, and AU-UN institutions. He is the author or coauthor of various articles, studies, and books, notably Chroniques du Darfour (2010). He holds a doctorate in African studies.

Related Publications

On November 7, the U.S. Department of State announced long-awaited plans outlining a path to better relations with Sudan, “designed to expand our bilateral cooperation, facilitate meaningful reforms to enhance stability in Sudan, and achieve further progress in a number of areas of longstanding concern.” USIP’s Aly Verjee and Payton Knopf discuss the initiative, and identify where broader U.S. regional objectives could cohere, including in the war in Yemen.

David Shinn, a former U.S. ambassador to Ethiopia and Burkina Faso, examines how great and regional power competition is impacting political and security dynamics in the Horn of Africa and complicating U.S. interests in the region.

The Trump administration has appointed four special envoys to coordinate U.S. policy toward key hot spots: Iran, North Korea, Syria, and Afghanistan. Yet in the Red Sea—one of the most volatile and lethal regions of the world afflicted by several interconnected conflicts and rivalries that pose significant challenges to American interests—U.S. policy has been rudderless in large part due to the absence of a similar post.

In October 2017, the United States lifted a wide range of economic sanctions that had been in place against Sudan for two decades. Aly Verjee, a visiting expert at the United States Institute of Peace, recently interviewed roughly 50 Sudanese—including students, business owners, doctors, laborers, activists, and others outside the government-connected elite—on what this first step in the normalization of relations between Sudan and the United States might mean for the future of their country.